Purity: A Thought Experiment
As the Democrats dissect the carcass of their failed 2016 election against Donald Trump, many contenders are being brought forward for their horrendous campaign. Of course, many of these ideas are misplaced, misguided, or just outright wrong; however, throughout the campaign and even after, there was a category of lines used against progressives.
Stop being so pure
You purists just need to get behind Hillary
Purity
Yes, the rallying cry of many Clinton supporters was that the skeptical progressives, millennials, and disillusioned were just too "pure" for the real, political action that needs to happen. That they would rather be "pure" with a third party vote than actually vote for one of the two parties. Clinton supporters heavily believed in the duopoly; that you as an individual must choose between one of the two parties. What seems utterly incapable to many Clinton supporters was merely the idea that many people just could not, under any circumstance, vote for the destructive policies Clinton believed in.
Which brings us to the thought experiment at hand:
Donald Trump has identified as a Democrat in the past, and ran as a Republican for the 2016 election. However, here, Donald Trump stayed as a Democrat. With the same policies, positions, and rhetoric, he campaigns as a Democrat and wins the primary.
David Duke ran for the US Senate and failed to get past the first ballot. However, here, David Duke had higher aspirations and went on to the primary for President. Here, David Duke won the Republican primary as their candidate.
With David Duke and Donald Trump both running for POTUS, here is where the test of purity gets tried.
1) If Democrats state that you have to vote for Trump against Duke, the individual they are now calling a fascist who will destroy every marginalized group in this country, who they state has brought racism and white supremacy to the forefront of America, and who will destroy our economy, then they truly have no values to which they uphold as sacred and will vote for whatever garbage has a "D" in front of their name.
2) According to Democrats who are firmly entrenched in the duopoly, if they can't vote for Donal Trump, therefore that means they must vote for David Duke, a former Imperial Wizard of the KKK.
3) If they state that they are unable to vote for either person, or state they would vote third party, that means they are being too "pure" for the real, political action that happens in this country. Or rather, that the hypocrisy runs deep against the very people whom they called purists.
4) If they state they will sit out this election, refer back to #3.
In the end, the argument for purity cuts deep against many Clinton supporters following this train of thought. Furthermore, one should dive into the actual concerns for purity and why they are a necessity for political discourse.
One of the many snarls at skeptical progressives was that no candidate would agree with them 100 percent, that a candidate is merely human and you need to accept that. This idea starts to fall flat when the point is that, for many individuals, there are certain lines in the sand that they will not cross. There are certain principles that they will not sacrifice just to have a party they don't believe in win. In fact, this logic becomes more insidious the more we look into it.
If you object to any destructive policies that a candidate and/or party is espousing, then suddenly you will be branded as a purist. Your voice will become silenced against a deaf crowd, unable to separate themselves from the reality they are creating.
If you oppose the endless slaughter in the Middle East, you are being too pure.
If you reject the neoliberal economic policies that have decimated the middle class and oppresses the poor, you are too pure.
If you oppose corporations owning our government, you are too pure.
If you oppose the destruction of our rights, you are too pure.
What should be noted is that every time someone states that you are being too "pure", that person is someone with no underlying principle or value that guides them. In the end, the individual can easily be reduced to someone who will vote for whatever their party does, merely because their party supports it. The only thing that will help stop the endless wars, the corporate greed and destruction of our planet, and help usher in even the slightest hint of a people-based government, are those with the principles to stand and fight for them. Those fighters are pure, and they are just what we need.
Comments
I wish I could add something to this exercise.
It was too well constructed, damn.
I agree with you: It is well constructed and I have nothing
of substance to add. I am glad you wrote what you did because I probably would not have responded.
Hillary Clinton: "Pure as the driven slush." - (Thanks to Mae West)
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
the driven slush
In the immediate vicinity and timing of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Hillary's favorite drink
The mudslide martini: decadent, expensive and pure as - well a mudslide.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Been there
Thanks for writing this.
For precisely the reasons stated in your closing, I am a purist. From day one, when that term appeared as an insulting effort to make those of us who simply won't vote for an obvious liar, among other unacceptable behavior patterns, as condescending. The fact is, I refuse to condescend in order to pursue cynical politics.
I love their continued specious argument that if only we voted their way Trump would not be in office. Specious? I'm being charitable. WE all had a once in a lifetime moment to vote for Sanders, and though he may not have won, it wouldn't be for the reasons assigned to Clinton's monumental loss.
I think Sanders would have won. I think Sanders would have won if those infected with the Hillarian pox did what they said they would do and vote for the primary winner should he have won it. It would have been a landslide. Nope. Better to sabotage the candidate with an astounding level of enthusiastic support, both in terms of human energy and financial support so that a woman, or someone "whose turn cannot be denied" or someone with foreign policy experience (even if that amounts to hawkish, deadly experience with horrible long term consequences) or someone who can no doubt massage Wall Street into developing socially responsible means of creating prosperity for all, or someone who picks a milk toast establishment wanker for VP in a time when it is obvious that establishment identity politics are yesteryears news -- yeah buddy -- that's the ticket.
Call me a purist. I'll teach you how to cuss.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Lol, you know they know how
Lol, you know they know how dirty they are when they attempt to make epic corruption sound like a good thing by turning purity into an insult!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Come by my Open Thread on Wed, if you have time
Your thoughts would fit right into what I'm probably going to write about--the effect of Hillarists on discourse, our ability to converse or talk about things at all.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Definitely
This here is my third essay now on Caucus 99. I've been a lurker for a while, during the 2015 primaries and 2016 election. I just never had the gumption to actually pen my thoughts down. While I had a variety of essays to write, it seems I only could do it after the whole thing was over. I even had a whole essay wrote out considering Hillary's likely failure along with the Democrats, way back during the convention. But I digress, yeah I'll try and stop by on Wed.
Great post
and as per above nothing to really add except I agree 100%. Purist is the only way to go for me.
Where were you when I was
Having this argument with friends and foes? I heard the we gotta hold Her feet to the fire as the "Solution" to my concerns so many times, I was ready to stab myself in the eyes with ice picks.
Exactly. Thank you. Pity you don't have a tip jar with this one. You deserve it. Rec'd and Shared.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Speaking of such
One of my first essays here deals with the false hope in holding feet to fire and "pushing" a candidate. I think you can find my essay "The Folly of Pushing" here on C99. I only used to casually read DKOS as I can only stand the place in small increments, so I'm not the most familiar with things such as tip jars and the like. I can only assume that is a good thing?
Sometimes humor doesn't translate well
In written form. Your points were brilliant. Apologies for the confusion.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
tip jars and the like
It is a good thing.
It is a consequence of there being no "mojo" system here. Anyone who can post here is as equal as anyone gets, with the sole exception of admins (which any website of any kind must have).
If you want a "tip jar" just to see how folks like an essay, you can have one. Just create the first comment in your essay and call it that. But it's really un-necessary, as the up-votes on the essay itself serve that function nicely.
Like the up-vote I gave you on this essay, for example.
Your essay was heart-healing for me. Both on DKOS and elsewhere, I've gotten my fill (to overdose levels!) of "support 'our candidate' no matter what". As Hillary Clinton, for practical purposes, is Donald Trump in women's clothing and better hair, I could not vote for her. In the terms of your experiment, imagine Donald Trump running as both the Republican and the Democrat. That's what we got in November. And the genuine article Trump is a better candidate for one obvious reason: he admits that he's Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton is, too, but lies to us and tells us she's different. (Which she isn't.)
Anyway, thank you for the essay!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
"Team D right or wrong" (rah rah)
is what brought us to the travesty of this election.
Also the belief that the Ds are the good guys and any D is always better than any R. Demonstrably not so, but tell that to the hordes who never question that framework (or like me, never really examined it until Obama).
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
Any style is only as good as
Any style is only as good as the individual practitioner... but when an entire Party decides that the Party platform traditionally describing what the party represents and works toward/supports doesn't really matter, the Party's shown that it (edit: stands for nothing it would put in writing for the public to see and) isn't worth spitting on.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Had a friend tell me that she thought my "Purity" indicated
that I lacked the ability to grasp reality.
My reply, "Well, I find your lack of purity will lead us to a reality I would never want to grasp."
I don't think we are as good of friends anymore, but so be it.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Strange how our apparent inability
to grasp "reality" was not comparable to their fantasy of holding Her feet to the fire once Her was in office.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 9:07am —
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 9:07am — zoebear
In reality, how could anyone other than a billionaire/corporate rep gain access in order to grasp Hillary's feet at all, never mind drag them anywhere productive? Hard for 'every-day Americans' to do this once they're mashed flat beneath them... or rather beneath the militarized boots of police protecting criminal banksters and corporate/billionaire/political others against the public?
On the other hand, there are those upset with the politicians who have said that they will work with their President if he proposes anything beneficial to the public and - in imitation of the Republicans - think that anything and everything he tries should be opposed, as was leaked as having been immediately sworn by Repubs with Obama. And doesn't this sound like a familiar Two-corporate-Party Trade-Off excuse for 'gee, I tried, but somehow only the stuff the oligarchs wanted could be passed?'
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Well it's hard to hold the billionaire
Politician's feet to the fire when they're wearing hazmat suits.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Ooops!
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
No, no, my apologies
I understood your initial point. I didn't mean to cause any confusion, and so I apologize for that. I was merely commenting also on your point hearing from your friend's about "holding her feet to the fire." I've heard a wide range of garbage regarding electing Clinton. My point was that here I wrote an essay about purity, but I also wrote an essay regarding the problems with holding a politician's feet to the fire. I'm just not 100% familiar with DKOS lingo such as tip jar since I never wrote there or joined, but I think it is a good thing (I mean tip jar sounds good in general ha).
All is good zoebear
Believe it or not
There are still things I miss about TOP when it was good years ago. Fortunately for us, many of the best Dkos writers came here. You'll fit in perfectly at c99. Welcome!
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
nothing flipped my F.U. switch as quickly as the
purity "slur".
back in 2008, when they were all mocking Dennis Kucinich for his height and his vague new agey spiritualism, i provided a list of his platform planks and noted that i agreed with DK on all but 2 of the approximately 20. by contrast, i would have agreed with any of the other Democratic candidates -- including the one i eventually voted for in November -- on at most 3 or 4 items. what could be more bizarre than the idea that wanting to get to maybe 33% agreement somehow constituted "purity"?
they don't get it partially because they are shallow thinkers whose understandings are expressed in vague generalizations: The Dems are "pro-labor", so "they" and "I" agree. trying to point out that the Dems are not, in any practical sense, pro-labor, will get you nowhere. these folks believe in a mythological Democratic party, which is why they think we're "purists" having a tantrum because we can't have our Single-Payer pony.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
They are as much about
purity as anyone else. They just want us to accept their purity instead of ours.
dfarrah
We "purists" are the realists
Lies and pretense aren't real, and it isn't real to pretend that nobody will ever notice that the emperor has no clothes.
Actually, many of Trump's most important positions, like stopping the regime change wars (and "wouldn't it be nice if we got along with Russia?"), and no more bad "trade" deals, were much more progressive than Hillary's. Merely the life and death stuff. He even wants to prosecute the bankers. Bad hair and all.
I guess you could say all that unappetizing sausage-making
behind closed doors that's supposed to be the "real work" of "getting things done"--the reason Hillary said she needed a public and a private policy--turned a lot of us into political vegetarians. Purists if you will.
So yup, count me among the purists who don't support backroom sausage-making from people who promise us non-toxic fruit and veg but push the produce off the table (not even onto the compost pile where it might do some good) and promptly start grinding up the offal they plan to serve us while claiming we should appreciate all their efforts to get us sausage we don't want.
I don't exist to cooperate with people who care nothing about what matters to me or about making genuine efforts to keep their campaign promises.
Proud Purist
Election 2016
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
Comrade Napoleon is always right!
That's what they would reduce us to.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Comrade Napoleon
Well, maybe if the Napoleon was XIV......
[video:https://youtu.be/hnzHtm1jhL4 width:500 height:460]
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Purity
For me, it is the endless slaughter in the middle east that causes me
to reject her and the party. Is the rejection of mass slaughter for no
compelling reason too much to ask!!!! Is that purity? Such hypocrisy after all we had to say about the war
in Iraq.. The establishment Democrats were complicit in that
catastrophe though and Hilary Clinton's term as Secretary of State
proved it... even after all Obama said in his campaign against it.
Curses....
Purity
For me, it is the endless slaughter in the middle east that causes me
to reject her and the party. Is the rejection of mass slaughter for no
compelling reason too much to ask!!!! Is that purity? Such hypocrisy after all we had to say about the war
in Iraq.. The establishment Democrats were complicit in that
catastrophe though and Hilary Clinton's term as Secretary of State
proved it... even after all Obama said in his campaign against it.
Curses....
There are two kinds of "purists". There are the much maligned
principled people who have certain things they will not do or support. THey are maligned by Party Purists, who lack principles and moral/ethical lines in the sane, but who all the same are purists because they must vote for anybody and everybody that their party puts forward, no matter how sleazy, unprincipled, criminal or fascist.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Democrats and Republicans in Total Sit at 55%. Not Much of a
Duopoly any longer, are they?
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Lol, two-faced, aren't they?
Lol, two-faced, aren't they? I'm also kinda wondering how many of those votes were stolen from 3rd-parties/write-ins/possibly created in some other fashion... Wasn't there something about some Dem having a box of blank ballots she apparently shouldn't have had? Wish I could remember where I last saw my memory...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Registration does not necessarily reflect voting.
In Massachusetts, where, Scott Brown aside, Democrats win almost everything in every election, over 50% of voters are registered "unenrolled" and have been for a long time. Yet, the only times, in modern times, that the electoral votes of Massachusetts did not go to the Democratic nominee were Eisenhower, a World War II hero, and the Gipper, who was also a rather unique candidate--and running against Carter. (Although I defend Carter, his administration was, let's fact it, not popular, to say the least.)
If you want to assess the health of the duopoloy, look at who came in first and second in the races for almost every elected office in the country, from town council member to POTUS.
No.
The argument is that these parties deserve our loyalty as a member of the party because they so powerful and are the only game in town.
Well, they are not so powerful and they are not the only game in town. 29% and 26% marketshare are not overly dominant; certainly not dominant enough to require to patronage.
You're injecting reality into the construct. That ruins the construct. The construct, or ideal, is what the entire argument is based upon.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
I am not sure what you are saying "No" to. My post never said or
even remotely implied that any political party merited loyalty, let alone argued in favor of giving them loyalty or "patronage." If anything, my posts have been to the opposite effect, but the post with which you are purporting to disagree didn't even touch the subject of loyalty. So, I'd love to know what in my post you actually thought was erroneous.
As far as injecting reality into a construct, I did not reply to a "construct." I replied to a brief, specific post that claimed that that voter registration indicates that the duopoly is now almost non-existent, which is simply not the case. The post to which I replied said, in its entirety,
BTW, I make no apology for injecting reality into any discussion. Being out of reality doesn't often result in solving problems. Reality matters. In terms of politics, of changing things for the better, how people actually vote matters. In politics, votes are what determines "market share," not voter registration.
The reality of how people actually vote is that the duopoly is alive and well. People who want to change that reality need to realize that, rather than taking false comfort in registration, rather than actual voting.
Isn't Homogeneity a Form of Purity? dfarrah Alluded to It Above.
It seems to me that they are the ones that are unsullied, unlike us great unwashed who ruin the homogenized Democratic Party.
It used to be a badge of honor to be a cat herded by the Democratic Party. Now they are all lemmings, following Any D'll Do "leaders" over the cliff.
While I love the piece here, we are the impure; that which must be expectorated from "respectable" discourse -- from the Democratic Body -- for it to be whole. Us free-thinkers and free radicals are the disease that fouls the body, makes it sick, and trips it up.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Whether it's a form of purity or not, unconditional,
unprincipled loyalty to any politician or any political party is self-destructive and also destructive to the 90%. For so long, Democrats sneered about Republicans voting against their own self-interest, even while they/we were doing the self-same thing.
Once the nakedness of their own Emperors was pointed out in ways they could not deny, they fell back on inane name-calling, with things like "purist."
Would not believe in the re-invention of Clinton
About sums it up.
Cornell West said the democratic party cannot be reformed as it lacked moral integrity. I would also add intellectual integrity as Hillary supporters basically lied about who she was and demanded that Sander supporters believe the re-invention and swear to it.
I haven't paid much attention to the smears since "Bernie Bros"
Since I was a strong Bernie supporter and I am definitely no Bro and my old whitish lady self was ignored and rendered invisible because my demographic was supposedly all Hillary's, any smear they have tried to smear since just flows right over me. I consider the source. "Purity" is just another kitchen sink.
And ultimately their downfall. When you smear Bern then you smear Jill and you smear all progressives no matter who they support other than Her or why, by the time you get around to smearing Trump you're the boy who cried wolf.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Donald Trump is not pure.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-carson-hud-20161205-stor...
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
No, but he's still better than The Mad Bomber
Almost anybody would be, actually. But hey, he doesn't want war with Russia, he doesn't want the TPP, and he's talking to Al Gore about climate change. Let's see what he can do.
Excellent essay
Excellent job of deconstructing the "purity" trope. Thank you.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
They throw a lot of spaghetti up against the wall to see if any
of it sticks. "Purity" is one of the strands of spaghetti. So is "single issue voter." So are "racism," "misogny," "privilege" and other epithets in that class. So is "right wing." So is "irrelevant." And on and on. If you pay a lot of attention to every strand, you could to nuts. Or use up all your time, which, IMO, would be proof of having gone nuts.
Perfect example: No matter how many issues Obama's critics cited, they were derided as "single issue voters." Along comes Sanders, challenging the Chosen One du jour, and all they could talk about for a good while was that the NRA once got pissed off at one of Sanders' Republican opponents in one election and endorsed Sanders instead one time (and never since that one time).
Of course, why they think hurling any epithet will get them something is another question. After all, "Obama Boys," "Bernie Bros" and "Basket of Deplorables" really paved Hillary's way to the Oval Office, didn't they?
On the first message board I ever posted, both Democrats and Republicans posted. One of the pm's a fellow Democrat then (I've since Demexited) sent me about the Republican posters at one point said only, "We talk about issues; they talk about us."
I later learned that unconditional Democratic loyalists and paid posters (lots of overlap there, IMO) have a lot in common with Republican posters. And paying close attention to what either of them spew is not a good idea. JMO
You are too pure...
is simply shorthand for: Shut the fuck up, we will never ever fight for this issue so, again, shut the fuck up.
In other words: Neoliberalism purity.
Progressive to the bone.
I don't think of myself as a purist,
so much as a maverick, or unbranded:
native